Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 426 user reviews. We have not scanned the app's package, so nothing on this page was read from inside the app itself.
This analysis describes version 8.7.9 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 8.8.3, updated 2026-09-29.
The app has been updated since this analysis. The findings on this page describe version 8.7.9, not the version now listed on the store.
Release notes for the newer versions, in the developer’s own words:
Version 8.8.3 · 2026-09-29
No release notes were provided for this version.
What the analysis found
One source only — shown, not confirmed 2
A single kind of evidence. We publish these because withholding them would be the bigger distortion, and we do not treat any of them as a finding we stand behind.
What reviewers said
Verbatim excerpts from public store reviews, shown as corroborating user reports. They are not Appworthy audit evidence, and a quotation is not proof of the finding it sits under.
Aggressive ad load
Fun NYT-like puzzle game where you try to guess the name of a song as you hear more and more instruments from the song. Songs range in genre and era from pop to rock to the 60s to the 2020s. Minimal ads and a one-time purchase gets rid of…
everything costs money and is full of ads.
fun game but the app started giving a pop up ad that opened my browser on my phone so I had to uninstall
Paywall blocks the basics
I absolutely loveeee this game. I love the concept of it. I appreciate the effort that went into development. I love the rush of dopamine I get when I guess correctly. But users should know that you have to pay for songs/bundles. There…
put yesterday's missed song behind a paywall. boo
Can only guess 1 song a day. Everything else costs money. Too much money. Might be worth keeping if they let you play previous days you missed. Since that is not the case I will not be keeping this app.
What this app sells
How the automated analysis works
This assessment is produced automatically. One independent signal is read — user reviews — and each candidate finding is filed under the source that supports it.
No charge stands on one kind of evidence — with one published exception. A finding is either a measured fact that anyone can reproduce (an ad SDK is in the package; every subscription bills weekly; the privacy label omits a tracker we can see), or it is an interpretation — and an interpretation needs independent sources to agree before it reaches the catch list. The exception is a harm only users can see: a charge may publish from reviews alone, as “Reported by N users”, once enough reviewers raise it to clear that charge’s own published bar. That agreement rule is what replaced the human reviewer, not a model’s confidence.
There is no overall score, on purpose. A 0–99 number was published here until 2026-09-15. It was withdrawn because it discriminated too weakly to be the instrument — 44.7% of every pair of apps tied — and because a single number is a verdict where a count is an observation. What publishes instead is a row of measurements, each of which says what was counted and, where we could not look, says that instead.
Findings under One source only are real reports we do not stand behind as findings. They are shown because withholding them entirely would hide a genuine complaint, and labelled because publishing them as charges would be an accusation off a single source.
Several measurements above say “Not assessed” because no artefact we hold can answer them. A human review is what resolves those — and it can remove a favourable band as easily as add one.
Hands-on inspections are not yet open.